Bibliographic record
Abstract
The figure of Eros is permeated with a logic of lack and fulfillment. As a figure of desire that seeks to be filled, that craves the ineffable, Eros is appropriately described by Plato as the child of poverty and abundance. It is a form of desire that seeks to take what lies outside, to possess the unpossessed and to devour what is desirable. Is it possible, however, to conceive of Eros—and eroticism—as something that is not working according to the traditional logic of desire? Such seems to be the task of Georges Bataille’s philosophy. Refusing the vision of Eros as a quest for pleasure, he developed a thought of eroticism as sovereignty through evil. This article aims at exploring what this evil entails; what a transgression of moral norms, seriousness, and selfhood means. Bataille is famously considered to be a thinker fascinated by evil, and it seems that such a consideration is too easily a reason to avoid him. I would like to show that his thoughts concern freedom, sovereignty and community. Through erotic transgressions, Bataille saw the possibility for true human freedom and communication. Evil as liberation and not Eros as pleasure. I take on a new approach regarding Eros through an exploration of Bataille’s notions of continuity, morality, transgression, death and holiness. The first part of the article will set down the basis of Bataille’s thought. The second will deal in detail with transgression and death, and finally I will deal with holiness, thus making the final step on the path to sovereignty.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".